My source for Sidney Rigdon's placement at #11 in the Council of Fifty is D. Michael Quinn "The Mormon Hierarchy" Vol. 1., p. 523. The recently published minutes might give further light, but I don't have a copy here.

Sometimes you wonder whether the leadership succession was basically a successful coup on the part of Brigham Young or was in the Reformed Egyptian words of the Moroni a fait accompli. That idea of saying Brigham took on the countenance of Joseph during a speech was machiavellian in its inspiration.

Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

My source for Sidney Rigdon's placement at #11 in the Council of Fifty is D. Michael Quinn "The Mormon Hierarchy" Vol. 1., p. 523. The recently published minutes might give further light, but I don't have a copy here.

I just had a lengthy discussion with my source. He told me the following:

1. From March 10, 1844 - June 27, 1844, Sidney Rigdon was indeed listed as #11, and Brigham Young as #23.
2. The next recorded list of members of the Fifty spans the period of Feb 4, 1845 - July 23, 1867. Sidney is not on this list, and Brigham is listed as #1.
3. This leaves a gap in the record, spanning from June 27, 1844 to Feb 4, 1845. Sometime within this gap time period, Sidney was dropped from the Council.
4. He is not aware of any specific record that indicates exactly *when* Sidney was dropped from the Council, but he *believes* it happened right after Joseph's death. He believes the Council convened and kicked Sidney out, probably early August of 1844.

He also said that indeed the list of Council members was typically listed chronologically, by age of the members, but that listing order did not necessarily correspond to any specific authority any of them had within the Council.

Note also, that Brigham was not sustained as President of the Church until December 27, 1847, and yet the official Fifty minutes had him listed as #1 on Feb 4, 1845 (two and a half years earlier).

I think I am going to stand with what I said earlier (a few posts above). Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so.

I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing. Regarding the succession, the only standing in the Fifty that matters is the ranking prior to Joseph Smith's death.

The February 4, 1845 record you cite is not from the Council of Fifty in the early church (i.e., during Joseph Smith's lifetime), but is already occurring in the emerging Brighamite faction of the church, i.e., the church faction that Brigham is controlling as acting church president, even though he is not yet been able to maneuver the people around him to sustain him as actual president of his faction of the church. As such, the 1845 meeting is not a meeting of the Council of Fifty, it a meeting of the Twelvite or Brighamite Council of Fifty. What the Brighamite Fifty say or do has no bearing on church succession, since from all non-Brighamite perspectives, it is already in apostasy.

That Sidney Rigdon was not on this new Brighamite Council of Fifty's roles is no surprise, considering that Rigdon had already relocated church headquarters to Pittsburgh and excommunicated the various people on the rolls of the Brighamite Fifty. Since the 1845 Brighamite Fifty meeting was conducted by excommunicates (from Rigdon's perspective), its actions have no bearing on the true Kingdom of God on Earth from the perspective of Rigdonites, for example.

In other words, it's a matter of perspective. If you privilege Brigham Young's perspective, it's no wonder you imagine that Brigham Young had a superior claim in the Fifty.

In other words, it's a matter of perspective. If you privilege Brigham Young's perspective, it's no wonder you imagine that Brigham Young had a superior claim in the Fifty.

Yep. I realize I have been speaking from the Brighamite perspective. And that it is not the CoC perspective, nor is it the Rigdonite perspective.

But, aren't most of the people on this forum coming from the Brighamite perspective?

I'm glad to make your acquaintance here, though. I have often had questions that I wondered about from the CoC perspective. Maybe I should start another thread with those? Seems I have already highjacked this thread away from it's original. Sorry for that.